[Concept] Multi-Classes

[Triceron]

I'm not complaining about not being a top player. My complains come from the fact that developers design the game around top players and that's why we can't have immersive features like i suggest, because it would "upset" the meta.

But it's not a fact. You feeling upset by game 'being designed around top players' is just a feeling.

And sometimes, you just won't be satisfied with anything they do because of reasons and expectations you've made up for yourself.

Like Dark Ranger, you argued hard that they should have domination chains and banshee form powers to be true Dark Rangers, and the Hero Talent had none of that. Blizzard listened to fan feedback and added those in, and yet you still can't give it the time of day. As long as the DR is not its own class, your expectations of a Dark Ranger can never be met by Blizzard, even if they add all the things you asked for is being represented. Is that a problem of designing to Top Players? Well, top players weren't asking for Dark Rangers at all, most just want their class/spec to hit big numbers, more than they care about using shadow magic and banshee forms

It doesn't chsnge much to most people whether a Dark Ranger is a Hunter Hero Talent or a new class as long as it has good representation, which 11.0 did right by. Fan feedback was pretty positive about the Dark Ranger changes. People have said it is much more immersive now. Are they all wrong because you happen to disagree?


If it isn't Top players , it's the woke crowd. Or the meta gamers. Or the PVPers. Basically, blaming anyone who isn't you. Your arguments aren't unfamiliar to this brand of scapegoating.

Cuz that's sort of the point here. It's not that Blizzard doesn't want to upset the meta; they can change the meta anytime (Blood Elves on Horde swinging faction population into balance; redoing the entire talent system, twice). It's because you are upset at the meta, that the fanbase at large and the direction of the game isn't built around your personal expectations of what immersion means.

[Enteroctopus Magnificus]

By the way, it looks a bit like the AoC system. You choose a base class, then a second class, and depending on the combination in the table, this creates a variant that can be interpreted as a new class. Like Priest + Warrior = Paladin.

I think this could be cool in WoW, as the iconic figures seem to be of several different classes, like the Shadowhunter who looks like a hunter/shaman.

But in the current class configuration, it must be a hell of a thing to achieve and balance. Sometimes I just wish WoW had more action- and position-oriented gameplay, like ESO, for example. Which would ideally mean for me, 5 basic spells + 1 ultimate ability (that charges while dealing damage/healing) at most.

[username993720]

I don't care about what this nebulous "people" say. We're discussing what you said and what I said here in this thread. Stick to that, and try not to shove words into my proverbial mouth.

So, you're telling me you're not against immersive feature ideas that might go against the meta?

No, that is not my stance here. Try again.

So, how do you intend to narrow gaps?
It obviously has nothing to do with immersiveness and fantasy.

I'm baffled here. Did you actually read what I wrote? You asked "which is more important, gameplay or immersion", I respond "gameplay", and now you say I'm talking about "visuals and effects"?

It's through the gameplay that most of the fantasy a class is delivered to the player.

And how is that? Through visuals and animations. You don't say "oh, this crit definitely makes me a Mage". It's mechanics like being able to Blink or go invisible that makes you into a Mage.

No. I'm not saying that, at all. Not to mention a Minecraft game of the same genre as WoW would not be Minecraft. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Your entire post is nothing but strawmen and misrepresentation. Not once did you actually address something I actually wrote. Try again, and this time do better.

So, give an example of gameplay over fantasy.

But it's not a fact. You feeling upset by game 'being designed around top players' is just a feeling.

And sometimes, you just won't be satisfied with anything they do because of reasons and expectations you've made up for yourself.

Like Dark Ranger, you argued hard that they should have domination chains and banshee form powers to be true Dark Rangers, and the Hero Talent had none of that. Blizzard listened to fan feedback and added those in, and yet you still can't give it the time of day. As long as the DR is not its own class, your expectations of a Dark Ranger can never be met by Blizzard, even if they add all the things you asked for is being represented. Is that a problem of designing to Top Players? Well, top players weren't asking for Dark Rangers at all, most just want their class/spec to hit big numbers, more than they care about using shadow magic and banshee forms

It doesn't chsnge much to most people whether a Dark Ranger is a Hunter Hero Talent or a new class as long as it has good representation, which 11.0 did right by. Fan feedback was pretty positive about the Dark Ranger changes. People have said it is much more immersive now. Are they all wrong because you happen to disagree?


If it isn't Top players , it's the woke crowd. Or the meta gamers. Or the PVPers. Basically, blaming anyone who isn't you. Your arguments aren't unfamiliar to this brand of scapegoating.

Cuz that's sort of the point here. It's not that Blizzard doesn't want to upset the meta; they can change the meta anytime (Blood Elves on Horde swinging faction population into balance; redoing the entire talent system, twice). It's because you are upset at the meta, that the fanbase at large and the direction of the game isn't built around your personal expectations of what immersion means.

Let me ask you this.
Would you have been happy if Death Knight, Demon Hunter, Monk or Evoker happened to end up as Hero talents? I bet you wouldn't. Because there's a huge difference between a fully realized a class and a measly talent tree. Because you personally don't care about the DR, it doesn't seem to affect you. But, let's see how you'd respond when it is one of your favorite classes. Then, you'd probably care.

You've got to admit, it's the easy way out. Why toil to make a new class when you can just put out a small talent tree? It quiets down the demands and it costs you a whole lot less. It's pure laziness.

By the way, it looks a bit like the AoC system. You choose a base class, then a second class, and depending on the combination in the table, this creates a variant that can be interpreted as a new class. Like Priest + Warrior = Paladin.

I think this could be cool in WoW, as the iconic figures seem to be of several different classes, like the Shadowhunter who looks like a hunter/shaman.

Thanks.
It could, indeed, cover some known archetypes.

But in the current class configuration, it must be a hell of a thing to achieve and balance. Sometimes I just wish WoW had more action- and position-oriented gameplay, like ESO, for example. Which would ideally mean for me, 5 basic spells + 1 ultimate ability (that charges while dealing damage/healing) at most.

You want it to turn into a console game?

[Ielenia]

So, you're telling me you're not against immersive feature ideas that might go against the meta?

That's not what I wrote. How about you address what I actually wrote? Try again.

So, how do you intend to narrow gaps?

That's not what I wrote. How about you address what I actually wrote? Try again.

And how is that? Through visuals and animations. You don't say "oh, this crit definitely makes me a Mage".

Mechanics are not animations, and mechanics are not visuals. Mechanics are what happens under those things. Mechanics are what separates a mage's fireball from a warlock's incinerate.

Mechanics are the not the color, shape and sounds a mage's fireball has. Mechanics are actually the amount of damage it does. What other effect it may have. The procs it can cause. Its cooldown. Its effect(s).

So, give an example of gameplay over fantasy.

Why? That has nothing to do with what I wrote. I simply pointed out there's no good immersion without good gameplay.

[Triceron]

Let me ask you this.
Would you have been happy if Death Knight, Demon Hunter, Monk or Evoker happened to end up as Hero talents? I bet you wouldn't. Because there's a huge difference between a fully realized a class and a measly talent tree. Because you personally don't care about the DR, it doesn't seem to affect you. But, let's see how you'd respond when it is one of your favorite classes. Then, you'd probably care.

You've got to admit, it's the easy way out. Why toil to make a new class when you can just put out a small talent tree? It quiets down the demands and it costs you a whole lot less. It's pure laziness.

Truthfully?

It wouldn't matter if they were classes, specs or Hero Talents as long as they were well represented.

I like WC3 and HotS style treatment of Heroes as classes. How does that translate in WoW? It doesn't have a 1:1 translation. Some Heroes only represent a spec worth of gameplay, like Thrall is a melee brawler with elemental magic and Rehgar is shape shifting totem-based healer. WoW adapts this as multiple Specs; like Enhancement and Restoration. Even if it is one class, you can onlyvplay one spec at a time. You can't be both Rehgar and Thrall, you choose to invoke one identity at a time. Hero Talents take this one step further adding more identities to a single class.

Does it really matter if Brewmaster is not its own class? That Shadow isn't its own class? That Guardian isn't its own class? Sure, it would be nice if we had 36+ classes instead of 36 concepts divided amongst 12 classes ( more if we count HT as identities). But the Specs carry most of the identity, not the class.

Like beastmastery Hunter has a totally different vibe from Survival and Markemanship. These could have been 3 classes. Each of the Hero Talents too.

And what does it mean to play a class really? If you are a Paladin, can you tank and heal at the same time? No, you can't. You take up one identity at a time. You are either a Clerical Healer, a Crusader of Justice, or a Holy Protector. Your character can only pick one identity at a time.

Specs carry the thematic identity while class is just a container for those themes. Like a WoW DK is little more than a container that houses identities of all original WC3 Scourge Heroes. Your character chooses one identity at a time, being either a Frosty Lich, an Unholy DK or a vampiric Dreadlord. That's all a WoW DK really is.

And you are fine with not having a separate Lich class, right? Why aren't you calling Frost spec lazy too? Why is Mountain Thane not lazy? Or Beastmastery? Or Shadow? Or Balance?

[Enteroctopus Magnificus]

You want it to turn into a console game?

Well, I don't see what's wrong with making WoW more accessible. This type of gameplay is more favorable to consoles, but that's not my primary goal. It's just that I like this gameplay, I find it more exciting and immersive than 20 unrewarding spells.

[username993720]

That's not what I wrote. How about you address what I actually wrote? Try again.


That's not what I wrote. How about you address what I actually wrote? Try again.

You seem like an automated answering machine.

Mechanics are not animations, and mechanics are not visuals. Mechanics are what happens under those things. Mechanics are what separates a mage's fireball from a warlock's incinerate.

Mechanics are the not the color, shape and sounds a mage's fireball has. Mechanics are actually the amount of damage it does. What other effect it may have. The procs it can cause. Its cooldown. Its effect(s).

How the spell works.
Take out their skin, could you even identify some of them?

Why? That has nothing to do with what I wrote. I simply pointed out there's no good immersion without good gameplay.

True. It's a huge contributing factor.
I mean, can a game hold if you strip it of its fantasy and simply stay with the gameplay?

Truthfully?

It wouldn't matter if they were classes, specs or Hero Talents as long as they were well represented.

I like WC3 and HotS style treatment of Heroes as classes. How does that translate in WoW? It doesn't have a 1:1 translation. Some Heroes only represent a spec worth of gameplay, like Thrall is a melee brawler with elemental magic and Rehgar is shape shifting totem-based healer. WoW adapts this as multiple Specs; like Enhancement and Restoration. Even if it is one class, you can onlyvplay one spec at a time. You can't be both Rehgar and Thrall, you choose to invoke one identity at a time. Hero Talents take this one step further adding more identities to a single class.

Does it really matter if Brewmaster is not its own class? That Shadow isn't its own class? That Guardian isn't its own class? Sure, it would be nice if we had 36+ classes instead of 36 concepts divided amongst 12 classes ( more if we count HT as identities). But the Specs carry most of the identity, not the class.

Like beastmastery Hunter has a totally different vibe from Survival and Markemanship. These could have been 3 classes. Each of the Hero Talents too.

And what does it mean to play a class really? If you are a Paladin, can you tank and heal at the same time? No, you can't. You take up one identity at a time. You are either a Clerical Healer, a Crusader of Justice, or a Holy Protector. Your character can only pick one identity at a time.

Specs carry the thematic identity while class is just a container for those themes. Like a WoW DK is little more than a container that houses identities of all original WC3 Scourge Heroes. Your character chooses one identity at a time, being either a Frosty Lich, an Unholy DK or a vampiric Dreadlord. That's all a WoW DK really is.

And you are fine with not having a separate Lich class, right? Why aren't you calling Frost spec lazy too? Why is Mountain Thane not lazy? Or Beastmastery? Or Shadow? Or Balance?

So, you're basically saying Dark Ranger is only spec-worthy?
Reality is, it's not even its own spec. It's a Hero Talent. Meaning, it is just a bunch of passives with a few active abilities. Is that what it is worth? I believe it deserves more than that. I mean, if you take the survey classes as real, are they more worthy than an actual established archetype with lots of lore and skills behind them? Because, currently, a lot of them got nothing going for them in terms of WoW lore and characters. Yet, you didn't go against them, did you?

Well, I don't see what's wrong with making WoW more accessible. This type of gameplay is more favorable to consoles, but that's not my primary goal. It's just that I like this gameplay, I find it more exciting and immersive than 20 unrewarding spells.

Sure thing. More platforms are always welcome.
I think Bellular already published a video of him creating a console like UI for WoW.

[Ielenia]

You seem like an automated answering machine.

It's the level of effort you deserve when you refuse to engage with what was actually written and instead try to create strawman out of my position three times in a row. So are you going to address what I actually wrote, or not?

How the spell works.
Take out their skin, could you even identify some of them?

What does this have to do with anything? We're not talking about "identifying abilities", I'm explaining to you what "game mechanic" is.

I mean, can a game hold if you strip it of its fantasy and simply stay with the gameplay?

Fighting games don't rely on "fantasy/immersion". Mobile games such as Candy Crush also do not. Minecraft is also a game whose fantasy doesn't really matter to many if not most of its players considering the plethora of mods that change the game's theme and fantasy. It's the game's mechanics that attracts people and keeps them playing.

[Triceron]

So, you're basically saying Dark Ranger is only spec-worthy?

I'm saying all classes are only spec worthy. Like Paladin could literally just be one Spec like Holy representing Uther from HotS. It could be a tanky healer who uses hammers, but still just a healer. And Prot could have been a separate Vindicator class designed like Yrel in HotS, or some new archetype that is similar to D3 Crusader or Johanna from HotS.

Reality is, it's not even its own spec. It's a Hero Talent. Meaning, it is just a bunch of passives with a few active abilities. Is that what it is worth? I believe it deserves more than that. I mean, if you take the survey classes as real, are they more worthy than an actual established archetype with lots of lore and skills behind them? Because, currently, a lot of them got nothing going for them in terms of WoW lore and characters. Yet, you didn't go against them, did you?.

You're just shifting goalposts.

If they did have lore, you'd still find excuses to want a class for the ones you like, and you wouldn't care about the Mountain King having no lore and only being passives.

[Zodiark]

What i mean is they can open max level servers for competitive players, who wish to only engage in endgame PvE and PvP. The rest of the servers can focus on the game world and the story. By doing that, the min\max fanatics wouldn't pressure the casuals, whom they share a server with.

The problem is with this idea is that no one min-maxes until they do. When you have information widely available it's too much of a lure to do some min maxing to a degree. Back in the day there was very little info available compared to today. Nowadays Tier lists and copy and paste builds make it hard to eliminate the desire to tweak your character. That type of behavior is the start of what we have today.

[username993720]

It's the level of effort you deserve when you refuse to engage with what was actually written and instead try to create strawman out of my position three times in a row. So are you going to address what I actually wrote, or not?

I can't even remember what it was due to the amount of times you try to evade answering.

What does this have to do with anything? We're not talking about "identifying abilities", I'm explaining to you what "game mechanic" is.

I know what it is.
I'm simply saying fantasy is a big part of it also.

Fighting games don't rely on "fantasy/immersion". Mobile games such as Candy Crush also do not. Minecraft is also a game whose fantasy doesn't really matter to many if not most of its players considering the plethora of mods that change the game's theme and fantasy. It's the game's mechanics that attracts people and keeps them playing.

Fighting games don't? Really?
Let's take Tekken, for example. Are you saying there is no difference in feeling between the capoiera guy, the kung fu dude and the boxer?

I'm saying all classes are only spec worthy. Like Paladin could literally just be one Spec like Holy representing Uther from HotS. It could be a tanky healer who uses hammers, but still just a healer. And Prot could have been a separate Vindicator class designed like Yrel in HotS, or some new archetype that is similar to D3 Crusader or Johanna from HotS.

Yes, i'm aware of your stance.
But, they all fall under Paladin because they're all holy warriors. Do you think Dark Ranger cannot encompass more than one spec? Hell, even more than a Hero Talent?

You're just shifting goalposts.

If they did have lore, you'd still find excuses to want a class for the ones you like, and you wouldn't care about the Mountain King having no lore and only being passives.

The reason i don't fight for Mountain King or Far Seer is because i believe they are in the classes. I've already told you about my analysis of WC3 heroes and Racial Traits. You can believe it or not. What i do know is there is no Vampire slayer\Witch Hunter archetype-like class, no matter how much you try to rip it off (using Hero Talents).

The problem is with this idea is that no one min-maxes until they do. When you have information widely available it's too much of a lure to do some min maxing to a degree. Back in the day there was very little info available compared to today. Nowadays Tier lists and copy and paste builds make it hard to eliminate the desire to tweak your character. That type of behavior is the start of what we have today.

That's the point of endgame servers. For those who want to engage in it only, or for those who figured out they do. We can't stop tech advancements, but it doesn't mean we have to adhere to it.

[Zodiark]

Yes I get that but there is always going to be SOMEONE who wants to be the king of the little people. That's the problem with ideals. They are great in theory or in a vacuum but once someone gets that itch it's just a matter of time before a cascade starts. So the only thing that can be done is to limit the amount of information the game provides. Create random encounters and procedurally generated dungeon with totally random mob and treasure placement. Bosses with random abilities at varying random strengths. But this would I'm sure eventually be overcome by someone motivated to try harder to create a mod that could predict outcomes or something using AI or who knows what. As long as there are people with free will then you will have those that want to game the system in some way.

[Ielenia]

I can't even remember what it was due to the amount of times you try to evade answering.

Then that is your fault. It's all on you. And I might answer a question when you make said question not a strawman of my position.

So, let's try this again: ask your question, and do not frame it like a strawman of my position.

I know what it is.

Clearly you don't since you think game graphics are game mechanics.

Fighting games don't? Really?
Let's take Tekken, for example. Are you saying there is no difference in feeling between the capoiera guy, the kung fu dude and the boxer?

You know what the difference between them is? Mechanics. Not immersion, but mechanics. Because those guys play very differently from each other.

[Triceron]

Yes, i'm aware of your stance.
But, they all fall under Paladin because they're all holy warriors.

But what does that really mean? You can't have different types of Holy Warriors as diff classes? Imagine if WoW wasn't shoehorning everything holy fighter related under a single container. Paladins, Sunwalkers and Vindicators all have enough distinctness to be their own identities. Further separation can be argued for Crusaders, like the D3 Crusader being different from D2 Paladin and being separate orders of the same faiths. TWW Lamplighters even fit that right now.

Do you think Dark Ranger cannot encompass more than one spec? Hell, even more than a Hero Talent

You even admit they don't. Every time we talk about a DR class you have to reach into unrelated archetypes like vampire hunters, which would literally be a different class

I think DR would inhabit a single spec worth of material, and thus be a single identity. Hero Talent for Marksmanship works to represent DR. What else is it missing? Every time we go over this, you start bringing in Valla's abilities. Valla is not a Dark Ranger.

The reason i don't fight for Mountain King or Far Seer is because i believe they are in the classes. I've already told you about my analysis of WC3 heroes and Racial Traits. You can believe it or not. What i do know is there is no Vampire slayer\Witch Hunter archetype-like class, no matter how much you try to rip it off (using Hero Talents).

Then witch hunter can be its own discussion. It isn't covered by any spec or HT. It has nothing to do with Dark Rangers. Why are you obsessed with wanting Dark Rangers be a type of Witch Hunter?

And see, this is where your reasoning breaks down. Mountain Kings and Farseers are as much 'part of other classes' as any Hero concept is 'part of other classes'. Blademaster is just a type of Warrior too, one that happens to go invis and use illusions. Warlocks are just a type of mage, one that summons demons. Even Paladin is just a type of Priest, one that melees. The definition of a WoW class is quite nebulous and free form.. Like what is an Evoker if not just a fancy name for Dracthyr Mages that lean on their bloodline powers? Lorewise, they are just a type of mage!

I think it is good that we have different identities for different types of Warriors, Mages, Wisemen/healers and Ranged Specialists. But the line between class and spec identities is not distinct in the lore. Gameplay merely adapts as it pleases, making no care if Brewmaster is just a Spec, while Evoker is a full class.

So question to you, are you more concerned about the lore or the gameplay? It seems you only want something to be a class just because it has a more prominent identity, but not really caring if a Dark Ranger becomes something else like a Witch Hunter in the process. So it doesn't seem like you care about Dark Rangers identity as much as you care about it fitting into categories that you feel most comfortable with. Like OCD > Lore.

[username993720]

Yes I get that but there is always going to be SOMEONE who wants to be the king of the little people. That's the problem with ideals. They are great in theory or in a vacuum but once someone gets that itch it's just a matter of time before a cascade starts. So the only thing that can be done is to limit the amount of information the game provides. Create random encounters and procedurally generated dungeon with totally random mob and treasure placement. Bosses with random abilities at varying random strengths. But this would I'm sure eventually be overcome by someone motivated to try harder to create a mod that could predict outcomes or something using AI or who knows what. As long as there are people with free will then you will have those that want to game the system in some way.

That's what addons created. These conveniances, or the ultimate way to play the game, need to be removed to make room for immersion.

Then that is your fault. It's all on you. And I might answer a question when you make said question not a strawman of my position.

So, let's try this again: ask your question, and do not frame it like a strawman of my position.

First, you'll need to remind me what was your original stance before we got to all of this draggin'...

Clearly you don't since you think game graphics are game mechanics.

Game mechanics are the skeleton. Graphics are the skin.

You know what the difference between them is? Mechanics. Not immersion, but mechanics. Because those guys play very differently from each other.

There's a reason i named them the way i did. Because they evoke a certain fantasy. In reality, their gameplay was similar. Push a button and they'd either kick or punch. Grab the opponent and they'll perform a special attack. Do a combo and they'll perform another. What differentiates them are the animations - the visuals.

But what does that really mean? You can't have different types of Holy Warriors as diff classes? Imagine if WoW wasn't shoehorning everything holy fighter related under a single container. Paladins, Sunwalkers and Vindicators all have enough distinctness to be their own identities. Further separation can be argued for Crusaders, like the D3 Crusader being different from D2 Paladin and being separate orders of the same faiths. TWW Lamplighters even fit that right now.

Sunwalkers maybe. The others are just religious knights.

You even admit they don't. Every time we talk about a DR class you have to reach into unrelated archetypes like vampire hunters, which would literally be a different class

I think DR would inhabit a single spec worth of material, and thus be a single identity. Hero Talent for Marksmanship works to represent DR. What else is it missing? Every time we go over this, you start bringing in Valla's abilities. Valla is not a Dark Ranger.

Then witch hunter can be its own discussion. It isn't covered by any spec or HT. It has nothing to do with Dark Rangers. Why are you obsessed with wanting Dark Rangers be a type of Witch Hunter?

And see, this is where your reasoning breaks down. Mountain Kings and Farseers are as much 'part of other classes' as any Hero concept is 'part of other classes'. Blademaster is just a type of Warrior too, one that happens to go invis and use illusions. Warlocks are just a type of mage, one that summons demons. Even Paladin is just a type of Priest, one that melees. The definition of a WoW class is quite nebulous and free form.. Like what is an Evoker if not just a fancy name for Dracthyr Mages that lean on their bloodline powers? Lorewise, they are just a type of mage!

I think it is good that we have different identities for different types of Warriors, Mages, Wisemen/healers and Ranged Specialists. But the line between class and spec identities is not distinct in the lore. Gameplay merely adapts as it pleases, making no care if Brewmaster is just a Spec, while Evoker is a full class.

So question to you, are you more concerned about the lore or the gameplay? It seems you only want something to be a class just because it has a more prominent identity, but not really caring if a Dark Ranger becomes something else like a Witch Hunter in the process. So it doesn't seem like you care about Dark Rangers identity as much as you care about it fitting into categories that you feel most comfortable with. Like OCD > Lore.

Can you not do the math?
It does not need to be spelled out to you.
You just need to look for the inspiration.
Every game has its own adaptation of certain archetypes.
Just like Diablo Monk isn't exactly like the WoW Monk.

[Triceron]

Sunwalkers maybe. The others are just religious knights.

DK's are just another type of religious Knight too if you think about it. No one says religion is only associated with Holy magic and Light

It does not need to be spelled out to you.
You just need to look for the inspiration.
Every game has its own adaptation of certain archetypes.
Just like Diablo Monk isn't exactly like the WoW Monk.

It's nothing more than headcanon

D3 Monk is not WoW Monk same way Dark Ranger is not Witch Hunter.

D3 Monk has a whole different aesthetic from WoW Monks. D3 Monks don't tap into chinese mythology or goofy alcohol themes, they are inspired by Shaolin aesthetics and old Kung Fu movies. WoW Monk is inspired by Chinese Mythology and uses Fighting Game aesthetics, like Street Fighter


Dark Rangers aren't dedicated hunters of creatures of darkness, they ARE creatures of darkness.

[Ielenia]

First, you'll need to remind me what was your original stance before we got to all of this draggin'...

My previous responses to you are still here in this thread. I didn't delete anything, so go back on the trail of responses and you'll eventually find it.

Hopefully, you've learned that insisting on strawmen after strawmen causes you to lose sight of what is actually being discussed.

Game mechanics are the skeleton. Graphics are the skin.

So you admit that game graphics are not game mechanics? So we can go back to the original subject now?

There's a reason i named them the way i did. Because they evoke a certain fantasy. In reality, their gameplay was similar. Push a button and they'd either kick or punch. Grab the opponent and they'll perform a special attack (1). Do a combo and they'll perform another (2). What differentiates them are the animations - the visuals.

You're literally killing your own argument here. In fighting games, save rare exceptions, characters won't have the same special attacks (1), and they definitely won't have the same combos (2) which means, gameplay-wise they play differently, regardless of graphics and sounds.

[username993720]

DK's are just another type of religious Knight too if you think about it. No one says religion is only associated with Holy magic and Light

No, it isn't.
Death Knights are based on the dark knight archetype.
In WoW it is. That's why the different priest races currently use Light and Void.

It's nothing more than headcanon

D3 Monk is not WoW Monk same way Dark Ranger is not Witch Hunter.

D3 Monk has a whole different aesthetic from WoW Monks. D3 Monks don't tap into chinese mythology or goofy alcohol themes, they are inspired by Shaolin aesthetics and old Kung Fu movies. WoW Monk is inspired by Chinese Mythology and uses Fighting Game aesthetics, like Street Fighter


Dark Rangers aren't dedicated hunters of creatures of darkness, they ARE creatures of darkness.

Same source, different interpretations.
Vampire slayers are also associated with dark powers. Do we need another holy class? That's why it needs to be monstrous instead. I didn't say it practices hunting creatures. I said it is inspired, or evokes, the themes of the archetype. Again, you seem to need everything to be literal. If the name is different, then you cannot see it. We know what warcraft Shadow Hunters are. Do they hunt shadow? No. It's just a cool name. They also are not the same as the Starcraft Shadow Hunters. We can clearly say a Shadow Hunter is based on exotic, tribal voodoouists. Same goes for Blademaster. What, do you need them to spell samurai for you? No, it is clear as a cloudless sky.

You're literally killing your own argument here. In fighting games, save rare exceptions, characters won't have the same special attacks (1), and they definitely won't have the same combos (2) which means, gameplay-wise they play differently, regardless of graphics and sounds.

In animation.
They still cause the same amount of damage and take the same amount of time to perform.
That's the magic of immersion. You believe they are different, even though in foundation they work the same.

[Triceron]

No, it isn't.
Death Knights are based on the dark knight archetype.
In WoW it is. That's why the different priest races currently use Light and Void.

Dark knights are knights who take up a dark religion, like worship of a dark god, or in Warcraft's case, championing the Lich King. They're literally dark mirrors of a Paladin, which is why they're often called Anti-paladins.

Same source, different interpretations.

Banshees and Vampire Slayers are not the same source.

The Dark Ranger epitomizes torment and agony, themes that run through their lore identity. Their existence is torment, from which they draw their strength of will. These themes come from the Banshee spirits that they used to be.

That isn't a Vampire Hunter at all in the slightest. Vampire Hunters don't draw their powers from their own torment. They are motivated by destroying evil, sometimes by hatred or vengeance, sometimes by duty, faith and justice. Most Vampire Hunters in fantasy don't even specialize in dark magic. Look at D from Vampire Hunter D or Blade. Even Alucard isn:t specific to using dark magic, he's more of a magic generalist. Furthermore, Dark Rangers literally tap into Necromancy and Possession, while Vampire Hunters rarely delve into summoning Undead or possessing others.


I think you've mixed things up in your mind because you've convinced yourself they are the same source just because of similar visuals, despite both concepts having VERY different origins. Even from a basic understanding, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Vampire Hunters hunt down evil to protect the living, Dark Rangers want to turn living beings into undead like them.

[sam86]

i don't remember which game i tried multi-class in it, but i didn't like it
wow already is diverse enough, playing paladin give u 3in1 package, even hunter BM isn't like hunter MM
if anything i wish wow return more to wrath style, ie: where most abilities are same to all specs (even if weaker) with few exceptions, for example a paly holy has only 3 unique abilities that prot/ret don't have, but still share holy light/flash light with other specs (of course his holy light is stronger but u get idea)